The Sub Area Manager vs Vice President

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.09.2017 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Kotma, District Anuppur in Execution Case No.01/2011.

A reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its notification dated 02.08.2004 for adjudication of a dispute by

the tribunal. On the basis of the said reference, an award was passed by the CJIT on 27.01.2011 in favour of the employees thereby the petitioner

is directed to take the employees on the roll as Category-I Mazdoor with all monitory benefits. Accordingly, both the issues were decided in

favour of the Union/Workmen and against the Management i.e. the petitioner. Employees Union, thereafter, filed an execution proceedings before

the executing Court for executing the award. During pendency of the executing proceedings, the petitioner management had filed an application

before the executing Court submitting that since there is serious discrepancy with regard to the identity of persons who are claiming employment in

lieu of the award passed by the CJIT, details of which were narrated in the application may be treated as part of the pleadings and requested the

executing Court to remand back the matter to the CJIT for identification of the real workmen. The respondent Union has filed his reply to the said

application. The executing Court after hearing both the parties has passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2017 thereby rejecting the application

preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the executing Court has erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. He submits

that in absence of identity of the persons, the employment cannot be given. He further submits that the real identity of the persons who are claiming

to the workmen is required to be established and in absence of the said identity the petitioner is unable to give the employment. He further submits

that learned Court has further failed to see that the employment can only be given to those workmen who were party to the dispute before the

CJIT and no persons under impersonating can give the benefit. He further submits that if the employment is given at first and thereafter if the

enquiry is held it would defeat the very purpose of these proceedings and the ineligible persons would get the employment. In such circumstances,

he submits that the order impugned passed by the executing Court be set aside by allowing the writ petition.

Learned senior counsel who is appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the order passed by the Executing Court. He submits that the

said application has been filed by the petitioner only to delay the execution of the award. He further submits that before the Labour Court, one

Mangal Singh and Siyasaran has represented the Union and they have given the list of the workmen who are the beneficiaries of the award. Their

details have also been provided, therefore, the objections raised by the petitioner are not correct.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the order passed by the executing Court. In the present case,

CJIT has passed an award in favour of the respondent union on 27.01.2011 thereby directing the petitioner management to take all Water Carriers

Workers are directed to be taken on the roll as Category-I Majdoor with all monitory benefits as the order passed by the CJIT was not complied

with by the petitioner management, therefore, respondent union has filed an application for execution of the said award before the executing Court.

During pendency of the said execution proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application before the executing Court stating that since there is

serious discrepancy with regard to the identity of persons who are claiming employment in lieu of the award passed by the CJIT, therefore, the

matter may be remanded back to the CJIT for identification of the real workmen. The executing Court by the impugned order has dismissed the

said application. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. From perusal of the order, it reveals that the execution

application has been filed by the respondent in respect of 26 beneficiaries and the list which is submitted before the executing Court, it bears that

the father names and other details of the beneficiaries and those persons they were identified by one Mangal Singh and Siyasaran who were the

beneficiaries before the labour Court and before the CJIT, the petitioner has not disputed their identity. The Labour Court has further observed

that when the Mangal Singh and Siyasaran has identify these beneficiaries on the basis of the affidavit as well as declaration then it is incumbent on

the part of the petitioner to give them appointment. If such appointment is found to be fraud then the petitioner is free to take action against him in

accordance with law. Thus, the order passed by the executing Court is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.